Model Number 1217-20-500 |
Device Problem
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
Patient Problems
Cardiac Arrest (1762); Infarction, Cerebral (1771); Hypersensitivity/Allergic reaction (1907); Unspecified Infection (1930); Tissue Damage (2104); No Code Available (3191)
|
Event Date 08/18/2010 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
(b)(4).If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
Event Description
|
Patient was revised because he experienced a traumatic fall, which caused the cup to shift into an unfavorable position, resulting in dislocation.Doi: (b)(6) 2010.Dor: (b)(6) 2010, (right hip).Update 12/21/2010: litigation papers received.There is no new additional information that would affect the investigation.In addition to what were previously alleged, ppf alleges pseudotumor, stroke, heart attack, bone fracture, abductor muscle repair, dislocation, infection, and elevated metal ions.Doi: (b)(6) 2010.Dor: (b)(6) 2010, (right hip).Doi: (b)(6) 2007, (stem).This pc is for the second revision of the right hip.See (b)(4) for the first revision.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Investigation summary: no device associated with this report was received for examination.The information received will be retained for potential series investigations if triggered by trend analysis, post market surveillance, or other events within the quality system.Depuy considers the investigation closed.Should additional information be received, the information will be reviewed and the investigation will be re-opened as necessary.No device(s) associated with this report was received for examination.In order to determine if a lot related issue was possible, a worldwide complaint database search was performed.A complaint database search did find additional related reports against the provided product code and lot number combination(s) for infection after 3 months of device being implanted.Per wi-3430, review of the device history record is unlikely to add value to the complaint investigation.Medical records reviewed (31 mar 2020) - from a medical perspective, based on the information available, it is not possible to determine if the complaint is product related.See attached report.Investigational inputs were requested as indicated per internal procedures for this failure mode.The complaint information provided has been reviewed for complaint coding, medical device reporting, and other data required by the complaint system.Per internal procedures, the event information and any investigational inputs received as part of required follow up were reviewed.For this investigation, no immediate action was required as no alleged deficiency with the device(s) was identified.Without the physical complaint sample(s) associated with this report, it was not possible to determine if the device(s) failed to meet specification(s) at the time it was released for distribution.The device(s) associated with this event were used in the treatment of the patient as prescribed by the presiding surgeon.From the event information received, it was not possible to determine the relationship of the device to the reported event.No information received with this individual complaint indicated that a broader investigation or corrective action was necessary.Depuy synthes considers the investigation closed at this time.Should additional information be received, the information will be reviewed and the investigation may be re-opened as necessary.Device history lot: null.Device history batch: null.Device history review: null.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|